attempt to compare the French budget with the budget of the Union； it must be remembered that the latter embraces much fewer objects than then central Government of the former country； and that the expenditure must consequently be much smaller。 If I contrast the budgets of the Departments with those of the States which constitute the Union； it must be observed that； as the power and control exercised by the States is much greater than that which is exercised by the Departments； their expenditure is also more considerable。 As for the budgets of the counties； nothing of the kind occurs in the French system of finances； and it is； again； doubtful whether the corresponding expenses should be referred to the budget of the State or to those of the municipal divisions。 Municipal expenses exist in both countries； but they are not always analogous。 In America the townships discharge a variety of offices which are reserved in France to the Departments or to the State。 It may； moreover； be asked what is to be understood by the municipal expenses of America。 The organization of the municipal bodies or townships differs in the several States。 Are we to be guided by what occurs in New England or in Georgia； in Pennsylvania or in the State of Illinois？ A kind of analogy may very readily be perceived between certain budgets in the two countries； but as the elements of which they are composed always differ more or less； no fair comparison can be instituted between them。 ＇The same difficulty exists； perhaps to a greater degree at the present time； when the taxation of America has largely increased。 … 1874。＇＇
＇Footnote m： Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of every French and American citizen to the coffers of the State； we should only come at a portion of the truth。 Governments do not only demand supplies of money； but they call for personal services； which may be looked upon as equivalent to a given sum。 When a State raises an army； besides the pay of the troops； which is furnished by the entire nation； each soldier must give up his time； the value of which depends on the use he might make of it if he were not in the service。 The same remark applies to the militia； the citizen who is in the militia devotes a certain portion of valuable time to the maintenance of the public peace； and he does in reality surrender to the State those earnings which he is prevented from gaining。 Many other instances might be cited in addition to these。 The governments of France and of America both levy taxes of this kind； which weigh upon the citizens； but who can estimate with accuracy their relative amount in the two countries？
This； however； is not the last of the difficulties which prevent us from comparing the expenditure of the Union with that of France。 The French Government contracts certain obligations which do not exist in America； and vice versa。 The French Government pays the clergy； in America the voluntary principle prevails。 In America there is a legal provision for the poor； in France they are abandoned to the charity of the public。 The French public officers are paid by a fixed salary； in America they are allowed certain perquisites。 In France contributions in kind take place on very few roads； in America upon almost all the thoroughfares： in the former country the roads are free to all travellers； in the latter turnpikes abound。 All these differences in the manner in which contributions are levied in the two countries enhance the difficulty of comparing their expenditure； for there are certain expenses which the citizens would not be subject to； or which would at any rate be much less considerable； if the State did not take upon itself to act in the name of the public。＇
Hence we must conclude that it is no less difficult to compare the social expenditure than it is to estimate the relative wealth of France and America。 I will even add that it would be dangerous to attempt this comparison； for when statistics are not based upon computations which are strictly accurate； they mislead instead of guiding aright。 The mind is easily imposed upon by the false affectation of exactness； which prevails even in the misstatements of science； and it adopts with confidence errors which are dressed in the forms of mathematical truth。
We abandon； therefore； our numerical investigation； with the hope of meeting with data of another kind。 In the absence of positive documents； we may form an opinion as to the proportion which the taxation of a people bears to its real prosperity； by observing whether its external appearance is flourishing； whether； after having discharged the calls of the State； the poor man retains the means of subsistence； and the rich the means of enjoyment； and whether both classes are contented with their position； seeking； however； to ameliorate it by perpetual exertions； so that industry is never in want of capital； nor capital unemployed by industry。 The observer who draws his inferences from these signs will； undoubtedly； be led to the conclusion that the American of the United States contributes a much smaller portion of his income to the State than the citizen of France。 Nor； indeed； can the result be otherwise。
A portion of the French debt is the consequence of two successive invasions； and the Union has no similar calamity to fear。 A nation placed upon the continent of Europe is obliged to maintain a large standing army； the isolated position of the Union enables it to have only 6；000 soldiers。 The French have a fleet of 300 sail； the Americans have 52 vessels。 *n How； then； can the inhabitants of the Union be called upon to contribute as largely as the inhabitants of France？ No parallel can be drawn between the finances of two countries so differently situated。
＇Footnote n： See the details in the Budget of the French Minister of Marine； and for America； the National Calendar of 1833； p。 228。 ＇But the public debt of the United States in 1870； caused by the Civil War； amounted to 2；480；672；427； that of France was more than doubled by the extravagance of the Second Empire and by the war of 1870。＇＇
It is by examining what actually takes place in the Union； and not by comparing the Union with France； that we may discover whether the American Government is really economical。 On casting my eyes over the different republics which form the confederation； I perceive that their Governments lack perseverance in their undertakings； and that they exercise no steady control over the men whom they employ。 Whence I naturally infer that they must often spend the money of the people to no purpose； or consume more of it than is really necessary to their undertakings。 Great efforts are made； in accordance with the democratic origin of society； to satisfy the exigencies of the lower orders； to open the career of power to their endeavors； and to diffuse knowledge and comfort amongst them。 The poor are maintained； immense sums are annually devoted to public instruction； all services whatsoever are remunerated； and the most subordinate agents are liberally paid。 If this kind of government appears to me to be useful and rational； I am nevertheless constrained to admit that it is expensive。
Wherever the poor direct public affairs and dispose of the national resources； it appears certain that； as they profit by the expenditure of the State； they are apt to augment that expenditure。
I conclude； therefore； without having recourse to inaccurate computations； and without hazarding a comparison which might prove incorrect； that the democratic government of the Americans is not a cheap government； as is sometimes asserted； and I have no hesitation in predicting that； if the people of the United States is ever involved in serious difficulties； its taxation will speedily be increased to the rate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies and the monarchies of Europe。 *o
＇Footnote o： ＇That is precisely what has since occurred。＇＇
Chapter XIII： Government Of The Democracy In America … Part III Corruption And Vices Of The Rulers In A Democracy； And Consequent Effects Upon Public Morality
In aristocracies rulers sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people … In democracies rulers frequently show themselves to be corrupt … In the former their vices are directly prejudicial to the morality of the people … In the latter their indirect influence is still more pernicious。
A distinction must be made； when the aristocratic and the democratic principles mutually inveigh against each other； as tending to facilitate corruption。 In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placed at the head of affairs are rich men； who are solely desirous of power。 In democracies statesmen are poor； and they have their fortunes to make。 The consequence is that in aristocratic States the rulers are rarely accessible to corruption； and have very little craving for money； whilst the reverse is the case in democratic nations。
But in aristocracies； as those who are desirous of arriving at the head of affairs are possessed of considerable wealth； and as the number of persons by whose assistance they may rise is comparatively small； the government is； if I may use the expression； put up to a sort of auction。 In democracies； on the contrary； those who are covetous of power are very seldom wealthy； and the number of citizens who confer that power is extremely great。 Perhaps in democracies the number of men who might be bought is by no means smaller； but buyers are rarely to be met with； and； besides； it would be necessary to buy so many persons at once that the attempt is rendered nugatory。
Many of the men who have been in the administration in France during the last forty years have been accused of making their fortunes at the expense of the State or of its allies； a reproach which was rarely addressed to the public characters of the ancient monarchy。 But in France the practice of bribing electors is almost unknown； whilst it is notoriously and publicly carried on in England。 In the United States I never heard a man accused of spending his wealth in corrupting the populace； but I have often heard the probity of public officers questioned； still more frequently have I heard their success attribute